Steyn is a Canadian living in New Hampshire. His conclusion is
Americans "gun" culture or protecting yourself and others may be
more civilized than Europe.

Go ahead, burglar, make my day
By Mark Steyn
(Filed: 06/01/2004)


"Mark Steyn may prefer American hillbilly culture to that of the
Swedish nanny state," wrote Ann Widung of Eastbourne on our
Letters page last September. She was dissenting from my
observations on the remarkable passivity of bystanders at the
murder of Anna Lindh. "You may criticise the Swedish police,"
continued Ms Widung, "for being inefficient in solving murders,
but I prefer to live in a culture of peace and solidarity to one
of fear and gung-ho mentality. Better a nanny-state baby than
Mark Steyn's 'citizen'."

Well, it's true I subscribe to a gung-ho mentality, but I don't
live in a culture of fear. In fact, British friends visiting me
in this corner of northern New England from their crime-ridden
leafy shires always remark on my blithe unconcern about "home
security". I don't have laser alarms, or window locks, or,
indeed, a front-door key. Like most of my neighbours, I leave my
home unlocked and, when I park the car, I leave the key in the
ignition because then you always know where to find it.

I'm able to do this because - and this is where the gung-ho bit
comes in - I live in a state with very high rates of gun
ownership. In other words, if you're some teen punk and you want
to steal my $70 television set, they're likely to be picking bits
of your skull out of my wainscoting. But the beauty of this
system is that I'm highly unlikely ever to have to blow your head
off. The fact that most homeowners are believed to be armed
reduces crime, in my neighbourhood, to statistically
insignificant levels. Hence, my laconic approach to home
security.

Now I understand Ms Widung prefers her "culture of peace and
solidarity". I think this means that, when confronted by a
ne'er-do-well, she'd hold hands and sing What the World Needs Now
is Love, Sweet Love. I wouldn't personally recommend this,
because, if he wasn't in a murderous rage beforehand, he almost
certainly will be by about halfway through the middle-eight. But
each to her own. Still, Ms Widung must surely be dismayed by the
number of her fellow nanny-staters who voted in Today's poll for
a "listeners' law" that would permit property owners "to use any
means to defend their homes against intruders".

A "listeners' law" is, of course, a pathetic gimmick. Judging
from the reaction of Stephen Pound, MP, the modish proponents of
"direct democracy" believe in letting the people's voice be heard
only so long as it agrees with what their betters have already
decided. So, having agreed to introduce the listeners' choice as
a Bill in Parliament, Mr Pound was a bit shocked to find the
winning proposal wasn't one of the nanny-state suggestions (a ban
on smoking, compulsory organ donation, mandatory voting) or the
snobby joke ones (a ban on Christmas decorations before
December), but the right to defend your home.

One can easily foresee New Labour, having run out of anything
else to regulate, introducing the smoking/organs stuff halfway
through a third term, and even the Christmas decorations ban is
well within the ambition of the more zealous council planning
enforcers.

So, reasonably enough, Today listeners voted for the only
proposal they knew for certain the governing elite will never go
for. Why, the People's Champion himself, Stephen Pound, dismissed
it as a "ludicrous, brutal, unworkable blood-stained piece of
legislation. I can't remember who it was who said, `The people
have spoken, the *******s'."

That would be Dick Tuck, a long-ago California state senate
candidate, in an unusually pithy concession speech. It's an
amusing remark as applied to the electorate's rejection of
oneself. It's not quite so funny when applied, by Mr Pound, to
people impertinent enough to bring up a topic that you and the
rest of the governing class have decided is beyond debate. As
used by Mr Tuck, it reflects a rough'n'tumble vernacular
politics; as used by Mr Pound, it comes out closer to "Let 'em
eat cake".

None the less, the professional opinion-formers came down on the
side of Mr Pound. The Independent's Joan Smith recalled that,
when she spied a burglar on her porch, she had no desire to "blow
him away". Nor do I, if I'm honest.

But I do want to have the right to make the judgment call. You
can call 999, get the answering machine rerouting you to the
24-Hour Action Hotline three counties away, leave a message, and
wait for the Community Liaison Officer to get back next week if
he's returned from his emotional trauma leave by then.

But that's the point: you're there, the police aren't. And, even
in jurisdictions whose constabularies aren't quite so
monumentally useless as Britain's, a citizen in his own home
should have the right to make his own assessment of the danger
without being second-guessed by fellows who aren't on the scene.

And, once you give the citizen that right, he hardly ever has to
exercise it. Take Miss Smith's situation: she's at home, but the
burglar still comes a-knocking. Thanks to burglar alarms, British
criminals have figured out that it's easier to wait till you come
home, ring the door bell, and punch you in the kisser.

In my part of the world, that's virtually unknown. In America as
a whole, 12.7 per cent of burglaries are of "occupied homes"; in
Britain, it's 59 per cent. Installing a laser system may make
your property more secure, but it makes you less so. As for Ann
Widung's "culture of fear", it's not American therapists but
English ones who've made a lucrative speciality out of treating
children traumatised by such burglaries.

As I wrote in September, to expect the state to protect you is to
be a bystander in your own fate. It's interesting that, during
the recent security scares, the terrorists seem to have been
targeting BA and Air France. They seem to reckon they've a better
chance of pulling something on a non-US airline. I hope that's
not true, and that when the next shoebomber bends down to light
his sock, he'll find himself sitting next to some gung-ho Brit
rather than the "peace and solidarity" type.

You can have a nanny state if you prefer. But not for long.



"Aren't cats Libertarian? They just want to be left alone.
I think our dog is a Democrat, as he is always looking for a handout"
Unknown Usnet Poster

Heh, heh, I'm pretty sure my dog is a liberal - he has no balls.
Keyton

Gunner quoted some canuck about burglary:

Steyn is a Canadian living in New Hampshire. His conclusion is
Americans "gun" culture or protecting yourself and others may be
more civilized than Europe.

Go ahead, burglar, make my day
By Mark Steyn
(Filed: 06/01/2004).................................

But who gives a **** about burglary when:

"Firearm Injuries
Scope of the Problem

Firearms are responsible for over 38,500 deaths per year.
Injuries resulting from firearms are estimated to be 5 fold
higher than deaths. Motor vehicle crashes, in comparison,
result in approximately 42,500 deaths per year in the US.
In 6 states firearm deaths exceed motor vehicle deaths and
by the year 2003 firearms are expected to be the leading
cause of injury death.

The epidemiological profile of firearm deaths varies by age,
sex, race, region of the country and intent.
National statistics for 1994 indicate that 52% of firearm
deaths resulted from suicide, 43% from homicide and 5% were
classified as unintentional. The majority of deaths are from
handguns rather than rifles or automatic weapons. High risk
groups for firearm homicide are young males between the ages
of 15-34 with the 15-24 year age group at highest risk. The
death rate for black males is over nine times that of white
males. Suicide death rates are higher in white males with
those over 85 years of age having the highest rates (60 per
100,000). Young males of both races between the ages of 15-24
have the second highest firearm suicide rate (18.8 per 100,000
for whites vs 17.0 per 100,000 for blacks). Unintentional firearm
deaths occur mainly in young children.
About 500 children die each year in the U.S. from "accidental"
shootings and at least 5 times as many are wounded.

US rates for firearm homicide and suicide are far higher than in
other countries. A recent CDC study indicated that American
children are 12 times more likely to die from a firearm injury
than children in other industrialized countries.

Cost of firearm injuries is estimated to be many billions of
dollars. The direct cost of medical treatment and emergency
services was $3 billion dollars in 1992. Much of this cost
is paid by the public. The total increases dramatically if
lost wages ($34 billion) and quality of life losses ($80 billion)
are tallied."

http://depts.washington.edu/hiprc/ch...opic/firearms/

Joe

On Wed, 07 Jan 2004 20:32:50 +1300, Joe wrote:

Gunner quoted some canuck about burglary:

Steyn is a Canadian living in New Hampshire. His conclusion is
Americans "gun" culture or protecting yourself and others may be
more civilized than Europe.

Go ahead, burglar, make my day
By Mark Steyn
(Filed: 06/01/2004).................................

But who gives a **** about burglary when:

"Firearm Injuries
Scope of the Problem

Firearms are responsible for over 38,500 deaths per year.

No..firearms are used to injure..not responsible for. This includes
police and citizens shooting criminals, suicides, accidents, murders
etc.

Injuries resulting from firearms are estimated to be 5 fold
higher than deaths. Motor vehicle crashes, in comparison,
result in approximately 42,500 deaths per year in the US.
In 6 states firearm deaths exceed motor vehicle deaths and
by the year 2003 firearms are expected to be the leading
cause of injury death.

Of course we all all know thats bogus as hell. See below.

2000, United States
Unintentional Firearm Deaths and Rates per 100,000
All Races, Both Sexes, All Ages
ICD-10 Codes: W32-W34

Number of
Deaths Population Crude
Rate Age-Adjusted
Rate**
776 281,421,906 0.28 0.27

Accidental firearms deaths..all ages...776 hummmm Now you are aware
that many suicides are listed as accidents, are you not? And you are
aware that accidental firearms deaths are declining rapidly, even when
firearms ownership is climbing....

Accidental motor vehicle deaths...45,200...

The epidemiological profile of firearm deaths varies by age,
sex, race, region of the country and intent.

Yup.
National statistics for 1994 indicate that 52% of firearm
deaths resulted from suicide, 43% from homicide and 5% were
classified as unintentional. The majority of deaths are from
handguns rather than rifles or automatic weapons. High risk
groups for firearm homicide are young males between the ages
of 15-34 with the 15-24 year age group at highest risk. The
death rate for black males is over nine times that of white
males. Suicide death rates are higher in white males with
those over 85 years of age having the highest rates (60 per
100,000). Young males of both races between the ages of 15-24
have the second highest firearm suicide rate (18.8 per 100,000
for whites vs 17.0 per 100,000 for blacks). Unintentional firearm
deaths occur mainly in young children.

About 500 children die each year in the U.S. from "accidental"
shootings and at least 5 times as many are wounded.

Bogus figures. See data from the CDC supplied below.

US rates for firearm homicide and suicide are far higher than in
other countries. A recent CDC study indicated that American
children are 12 times more likely to die from a firearm injury
than children in other industrialized countries.

Some countries yes. On the other hand suicides and homicides are lower
than in other countries. Japan, has 9 times the suicide rate of the US,
and few are by firearm.

Cost of firearm injuries is estimated to be many billions of
dollars. The direct cost of medical treatment and emergency
services was $3 billion dollars in 1992. Much of this cost
is paid by the public. The total increases dramatically if
lost wages ($34 billion) and quality of life losses ($80 billion)
are tallied."

http://depts.washington.edu/hiprc/ch...opic/firearms/

Joe

The annual cost of motor vehicle occupant-related death and injury
exceeds $25.8 billion for children ages 14 and under, according to the
National Safe Kids Campaign.

Oh.Joe? Dont trust figures from sites with .edu and having antigun
agendas. Use the CDC or Department of Justice figures..they are more
accurate..

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm

Firearms and Crime Statistics
Firearm-related crime has plummeted since 1993
Nonfatal firearm crime rates have declined since 1994, reaching the
lowest level ever recorded in 2002.
After 1994, the proportion of nonfatal violent incidents involving a
firearm dropped.
According to the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) in 2002,
442,880 victims of violent crimes stated that they faced an offender
with a firearm.
Incidents involving a firearm represented 7% of the 4.9 million violent
crime of rape and sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated and simple
assault.
The FBI's Crime in the United States estimated that 67% of the 16,204
murders in 2002 were committed with firearms.
From 1993 through 1997, less than 1% of serious nonfatal violent
victimizations resulted in gunshot wounds.
The number of gunshot wounds from assaults treated in hospital emergency
departments fell from 64,100 in 1993 to 39,400 in 1997, a 39% decline.

Gun supply and homicides/suicides
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvsupp.html
http://www.cato.org/dailys/05-13-00.html
1. Thousands of children die annually in gun accidents.

False. Gun accidents involving children are actually at record lows,
although you wouldn't know it from listening to the mainstream media. In
1997, the last year for which data are available, only 142 children
under 15 years of age died in gun accidents, and the total number of
gun-related deaths for this age group was 642. More children die each
year in accidents involving bikes, space heaters or drownings. The often
repeated claim that 12 children per day die from gun violence includes
"children" up to 20 years of age, the great majority of whom are young
adult males who die in gang-related violence.

15 Leading Causes of Death in the U.S., 2001
Leading causes of death differ somewhat by age, sex, and race. In 2001,
as in previous years, accidents were the leading cause of death for
those under 34 years, while in older age groups chronic diseases such as
cancer and heart disease were the leading causes. The top three causes
for males and females—heart disease, cancer, and stroke—are exactly the
same. However, suicide and chronic liver disease ranked 8th and 10th for
males but were not ranked among the ten leading causes for females.
Similarly, Alzheimer's disease ranked 7th for females but was not among
the top ten for males. For white males aged 15–34, the top two causes
were accidents and suicide, while for black males in the same age group,
the top two causes of death were homicide and accidents.

Rank1 Causes of death Number Deaths per
100,000 population
All causes 2,417,798 849.0
1. Diseases of heart 699,697 245.7
2. Malignant neoplasms (cancer) 553,251 194.3
3. Cerebrovascular diseases 163,601 57.4
4. Chronic lower respiratory diseases 123,974 43.5
5. Accidents (unintentional injuries) 97,707 34.3
6. Diabetes mellitus 71,252 25.0
7. Influenza and pneumonia 62,123 21.8
8. Alzheimer's disease 53,679 18.8
9. Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis 39,661 13.9
10. Septicemia 32,275 11.3
11. Suicide 29,423 10.3
12. Chronic liver disease and cirrhosis 26,751 9.4
13. Homicide 19,727 6.9
14. Hypertension and hypertensive renal disease 19,054 6.7
15. Pneumonitis due to solids and liquids 17,392 6.1
All other causes 408,231 143.3

1. Rank based on number of deaths.
Source: U.S. National Center for Health Statistics, National Vital
Statistics Report, vol. 51, no. 5, March 14, 2003. Web: www.cdc.gov/nchs
..


1998 US Motor Vehicle Fatalities and Injuries by Type of Crash
Type of Accident Deaths NonfatalInjuries FatalAccidents InjuryAccidents
AllAccidents

Collision with-
Pedestrian 5,900 84,000 5,800 50,000 145,000
Other motor vehicle 19,500 1,700,000 15,000 1,010,000 8,980,000
Angle collision 9,900 900,000 7,400 540,000 4,550,000
Head on collision 6,600 61,000 5,000 36,000 190,000
Rear end collision 2,300 695,000 2,000 413,000 3,700,000
Sideswipe and other
two-vehicle collision 700 44,000 600 21,000 540,000
Railroad train 400 2,000 200 1,000 5,000
Pedalcycle 700 49,000 700 40,000 110,000
Animal, animal-drawn vehicle 100 10,000 100 9,000 520,000
Fixed object 10,500 260,000 10,200 235,000 2,590,000
Noncollision 4,100 95,000 4,000 55,000 350,000
TOTAL 41,200 2,200,000 36,000 1,400,000 12,700,000
***********************************
Hummmmm....2 million, 200 thousand injuries by motor vehicles.....

A motorist is 40 times more likely to die in a crash involving a train
than with another motor vehicle. In 1998, 14 were killed and 37 were
injured in 136 highway-rail crossing crashes across the state.
Nationally 422 fatalities and 1,270 injuries were associated with 3,446
such crashes. An additional 514 pedestrians were killed along US
railways, including 14 in Ohio.
(Ohio Department of Public Safety)

Looks like we need to ban trains......more people get killed by trains
accidently than by firearms accidents by some goodly amount.

The annual cost of motor vehicle occupant-related death and injury
exceeds $25.8 billion for children ages 14 and under, according to the
National Safe Kids Campaign.

In 2000, 1,654 children ages 14 and younger died in motor vehicle
crashes. In 2001, an estimated 228,000 children ages 14 and under were
injured in motor vehicle-related crashes. Among children who died in
2001, 55 percent were not using safety restraints at the time of the
collision.

The greatest number of recreational injuries to children in 2000
occurred while the child was riding a bicycle. Although most of these
415,000 injures were bruises (contusions), broken arms and wrists were
also common. There were more than 125,000 fractures among bicycle
riders. Falling off the bike and colliding with a fixed object such as a
wall or with another bicycle were the most common causes of injuries.

Basketball is the most popular team sport in high schools and the
leading cause of all sports-related injuries. In 2000, children aged 5
to 14 years had more than 407,000 muscle and bone injuries while playing
basketball. Although boys and girls at this age have similar injury
rates, the rate for knee injuries increases significantly for young
women aged 15 years and older. Girls also have more ankle sprains than
boys.

Football is a collision sport. In 2000, doctors treated an estimated
389,000 musculoskeletal injuries due to football in children 5 to 14
years of age. More than 100,000 injuries involved a fracture, although
sprains, strains, and bruises were also common.

Roller sports include inline skating, skateboarding, scooters and roller
skating. This category accounted for 297,000 medically treated
musculoskeletal injuries among 5-to 14-year olds in 2000. More than
125,000 of these injuries involved broken bones, primarily among
children under 10 years of age. Fractures due to skateboarding were more
common among older children (11 to 14 years old). The forearm and the
wrist were the most common fracture sites.

In the United States, there are approximately 15 million school-age
students and 100 to 200 reported pediatric sudden deaths per year,
roughly calculating to one to two children per 100,000 annually. Sudden
cardiac death during sports typically occurs in healthy, previously
asymptomatic children and young adults.

Yet the Center for Disease Control, which tracks all causes of death,
reports only 86 accidental deaths in kids aged 14-years-and-under in the
year 2000, and 110 suicides, for a total of 198. Not exactly 1,800.
(Even if Dr. Phil intended to include homicide and undetermined intent,
the total of kids aged 14-and-under killed by firearms in 2000,
according to the CDC, was 435.)


By contrast, the CDC reported 943 accidental drownings of kids aged
14-and-under, 593 deaths from accidental exposures to smoke and fire,
and 2,591 killed in motor vehicle accidents. Surely one child dying
through handgun violence -- or any kind of violence -- is one child too
many, but we should not lose perspective.

************

Looks like we need to ban water and fire.....



CDC Report on Gun Control Confirms Laws Don't Work Says Citizens
Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms

10/3/03 5:43:00 PM


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To: National Desk

Contact: Alan Gottlieb or Joe Waldron, 425-454-4911, both of the
Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms

BELLEVUE, Wash., Oct. 3 /U.S. Newswire/ -- A report released by the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) showing that there is
no conclusive evidence that gun control laws contribute to decreases in
violent crime or suicide "proves what we have been saying for years,"
the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA) said
today.

"For years," said CCRKBA Executive Director Joe Waldron, "anti-gun
groups, often citing the CDC's earlier biased research, had claimed more
gun laws will reduce violent crime and suicide. CDC stopped conducting
advocacy research in 1996 by order of Congress. Now, according to more
balanced research, the CDC is basically acknowledging that its earlier
efforts, and those of extremist gun grabbers, have been all wet."

Yet the CDC, evidently unhappy with the available research, wants to
study the issue more, arguing that there is "insufficient evidence to
determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws reviewed for
preventing violence." Waldron rejected that as more partisan politics.

"Because the CDC could not reach yet another anti-gun conclusion," he
said, "they want to study some more, at least until they come up with a
report that squared with their long-standing anti-gun agenda. That
doesn't wash. For the first time, CDC has had to acknowledge that gun
control doesn't work."

The report brought an incredulous comment from Peter Hamm with the Brady
Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence: "It's hard to study whether gun
control laws work in this country because we have so few of them."

CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb offered this blistering response: "Hamm is
half-baked. Gun ownership in this country is heavily regulated by a
Pandora's Box of federal, state and local gun laws, many which often
conflict with one another to the point that private citizens cannot know
whether they are obeying a law while breaking another. The CDC report
seems to confirm what we've been saying all along. Gun control laws have
no impact on criminals, only law-abiding citizens who don't commit
crimes. To suggest we need more laws when the ones already passed as
successive panaceas apparently haven't worked is ludicrous.

"The CDC's suggestion for additional studies, simply because they don't
like the results of their own research, is like treating a patient with
drugs that you know aren't working, so you give him more of the same
drugs," Gottlieb observed.



So Joe..your rightious indignation is a bit misplaced. I suggest you ban
bicycles, swimming pools, motor vehicles, trains, abusive parents (whom
shook or beat to death many thousands more childen than they shot),
food (more choked to death on food than died by firearms accidents), all
sports, and pets.

Oh..you may want to ban all agriculture as well
http://research.marshfieldclinic.org.../FactSheet.htm

Chuckle

Work on it..someday you may get something right.

Gunner



"Aren't cats Libertarian? They just want to be left alone.
I think our dog is a Democrat, as he is always looking for a handout"
Unknown Usnet Poster

Heh, heh, I'm pretty sure my dog is a liberal - he has no balls.
Keyton

In article , Gunner says...

1998 US Motor Vehicle Fatalities and Injuries by Type of Crash
Type of Accident Deaths NonfatalInjuries FatalAccidents InjuryAccidents
AllAccidents

Collision with-
Pedestrian 5,900 84,000 5,800 50,000 145,000
Other motor vehicle 19,500 1,700,000 15,000 1,010,000 8,980,000
Angle collision 9,900 900,000 7,400 540,000 4,550,000
Head on collision 6,600 61,000 5,000 36,000 190,000
Rear end collision 2,300 695,000 2,000 413,000 3,700,000
Sideswipe and other
two-vehicle collision 700 44,000 600 21,000 540,000
Railroad train 400 2,000 200 1,000 5,000
Pedalcycle 700 49,000 700 40,000 110,000
Animal, animal-drawn vehicle 100 10,000 100 9,000 520,000
Fixed object 10,500 260,000 10,200 235,000 2,590,000
Noncollision 4,100 95,000 4,000 55,000 350,000
TOTAL 41,200 2,200,000 36,000 1,400,000 12,700,000
***********************************


A motorist is 40 times more likely to die in a crash involving a train
than with another motor vehicle.

I don't see the 40 times in the figures above, gunner. Granted
they're a bit scrambled, but I read according to the legend
at the top, that the 'fatal accidents' number should be the
third one from the right. So 'train' would be 200, and 'all
other motor vehicle' should be 15,000.

So you are probability of dying in a car/train wreck would
be around one percent of dying in a MV/MV crash - according
to those numbers.

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

Bull**** re. the cost of firearms injuries! Imagine a society in which
there was total zero firearms. All the sickos, criminals and otherwise
plain killers would have to resort to a less efficient way to prey upon the
decent element of society (that's me and you). So you'd have even higher
costs than are now being generated by those that seek to kill us. The gun
is an efficient killing device. The bad guys are smart enough to know that.
I plan to always have one on hand to defend myself. I'm less likely to be
injured by a gun than I am with some sicko wielding a knife - esp. if I am
able to land the first chop, errr, shot.

Bob Swinney


"Joe" wrote in message ...
Gunner quoted some canuck about burglary:

Steyn is a Canadian living in New Hampshire. His conclusion is
Americans "gun" culture or protecting yourself and others may be
more civilized than Europe.

Go ahead, burglar, make my day
By Mark Steyn
(Filed: 06/01/2004).................................


Firearms are responsible for over 38,500 deaths per year.
Injuries resulting from firearms are estimated to be 5 fold
higher than deaths. Motor vehicle crashes, in comparison,
result in approximately 42,500 deaths per year in the US.
In 6 states firearm deaths exceed motor vehicle deaths and
by the year 2003 firearms are expected to be the leading
cause of injury death.

The epidemiological profile of firearm deaths varies by age,
sex, race, region of the country and intent.
National statistics for 1994 indicate that 52% of firearm
deaths resulted from suicide, 43% from homicide and 5% were
classified as unintentional. The majority of deaths are from
handguns rather than rifles or automatic weapons. High risk
groups for firearm homicide are young males between the ages
of 15-34 with the 15-24 year age group at highest risk. The
death rate for black males is over nine times that of white
males. Suicide death rates are higher in white males with
those over 85 years of age having the highest rates (60 per
100,000). Young males of both races between the ages of 15-24
have the second highest firearm suicide rate (18.8 per 100,000
for whites vs 17.0 per 100,000 for blacks). Unintentional firearm
deaths occur mainly in young children.
About 500 children die each year in the U.S. from "accidental"
shootings and at least 5 times as many are wounded.

US rates for firearm homicide and suicide are far higher than in
other countries. A recent CDC study indicated that American
children are 12 times more likely to die from a firearm injury
than children in other industrialized countries.

Cost of firearm injuries is estimated to be many billions of
dollars. The direct cost of medical treatment and emergency
services was $3 billion dollars in 1992. Much of this cost
is paid by the public. The total increases dramatically if
lost wages ($34 billion) and quality of life losses ($80 billion)
are tallied."

http://depts.washington.edu/hiprc/ch...opic/firearms/

Joe

The stupidity level of someone dying in a train/car collision parallels that
of "bringing a knife to a gun fight".

Bob Swinney
"jim rozen" wrote in message
...
In article , Gunner says...

1998 US Motor Vehicle Fatalities and Injuries by Type of Crash
Type of Accident Deaths NonfatalInjuries FatalAccidents InjuryAccidents
AllAccidents

Collision with-
Pedestrian 5,900 84,000 5,800 50,000 145,000
Other motor vehicle 19,500 1,700,000 15,000 1,010,000 8,980,000
Angle collision 9,900 900,000 7,400 540,000 4,550,000
Head on collision 6,600 61,000 5,000 36,000 190,000
Rear end collision 2,300 695,000 2,000 413,000 3,700,000
Sideswipe and other
two-vehicle collision 700 44,000 600 21,000 540,000
Railroad train 400 2,000 200 1,000 5,000
Pedalcycle 700 49,000 700 40,000 110,000
Animal, animal-drawn vehicle 100 10,000 100 9,000 520,000
Fixed object 10,500 260,000 10,200 235,000 2,590,000
Noncollision 4,100 95,000 4,000 55,000 350,000
TOTAL 41,200 2,200,000 36,000 1,400,000 12,700,000
***********************************


A motorist is 40 times more likely to die in a crash involving a train
than with another motor vehicle.

I don't see the 40 times in the figures above, gunner. Granted
they're a bit scrambled, but I read according to the legend
at the top, that the 'fatal accidents' number should be the
third one from the right. So 'train' would be 200, and 'all
other motor vehicle' should be 15,000.

So you are probability of dying in a car/train wreck would
be around one percent of dying in a MV/MV crash - according
to those numbers.

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

Bob Swinney wrote:

Bull**** re. the cost of firearms injuries! Imagine a society in which
there was total zero firearms.






I would have to mix salt peter, sulfur and charcoal.


--

Mark

N.E. Ohio


Never argue with a fool, a bystander can't tell you apart. (S. Clemens,
A.K.A. Mark Twain)

When in doubt hit the throttle. It may not help but it sure ends the
suspense. (Gaz, r.moto)

On 7 Jan 2004 05:43:51 -0800, jim rozen
brought forth from the murky depths:

In article , Gunner says...

Other motor vehicle 19,500 1,700,000 15,000 1,010,000 8,980,000

19,500/8,980,000 = 0.002 = 0.2% fatality rate.

Railroad train 400 2,000 200 1,000 5,000

400/5,000 = 0.08 = 8% fatality rate.

A motorist is 40 times more likely to die in a crash involving a train
than with another motor vehicle.

I don't see the 40 times in the figures above, gunner. Granted

0.08/0.002 = 40x difference, Jim.

That's if the stats showed all 1998 train wrecks, not just those
involving automobiles.


================================================== =======
The Titanic. The Hindenburg. + http://www.diversify.com
The Clintons. + Website & Graphic Design
================================================== =======

In article , Larry Jaques says...

I don't see the 40 times in the figures above, gunner. ...

0.08/0.002 = 40x difference, Jim.

I think it boils down to the difference between
comparing two different numbers. On one hand
is the probability that a motorist will die in
a wreck with another motor vehicle, vs in a wreck
with a train.

On the other hand is the *total* probability of dying
in various kinds of wrecks, train vs another car.

Because train/car wrecks are so infrequent, the second
number is very low. But if you look at the fatality rate
for train crashes vs other car crashes, of course the train one
will be much much higher. I thought gunner was
implying that the first type of comparison was large - which
it isn't.

I also don't understand the difference in the stats
quoted, between "fatal accidents" and "accident deaths."

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

On 7 Jan 2004 12:39:10 -0800, jim rozen
brought forth from the murky depths:

Because train/car wrecks are so infrequent, the second
number is very low. But if you look at the fatality rate
for train crashes vs other car crashes, of course the train one
will be much much higher. I thought gunner was
implying that the first type of comparison was large - which
it isn't.

Hmmm, I'm feeling a little PSA here. I think that one went over
my head. (You lost me there.)


I also don't understand the difference in the stats
quoted, between "fatal accidents" and "accident deaths."

Ayup, whoever wrote that questionnaire/database didn't know
what they were doing. Dat's fer sher.


================================================== =======
The Titanic. The Hindenburg. + http://www.diversify.com
The Clintons. + Website & Graphic Design
================================================== =======

In article , Larry Jaques says...

On 7 Jan 2004 12:39:10 -0800, jim rozen
brought forth from the murky depths:

Because train/car wrecks are so infrequent, the second
number is very low. But if you look at the fatality rate
for train crashes vs other car crashes, of course the train one
will be much much higher. I thought gunner was
implying that the first type of comparison was large - which
it isn't.

Hmmm, I'm feeling a little PSA here. I think that one went over
my head. (You lost me there.)

What are my chances of dying in a crash, with another car?
Sort of high, right? Because most of what I encounter when
I drive, is other cars. What are my chances of dying in
a crash, with a train as the other vehicle? Overall pretty
low - because I don't encounter many trains on the road, as
a rule.

So it's safe to say that, overall, dying by getting in a
car/train wreck is about a percent or less of teh chance
of dying in a car/car crash for me.

But, if one says, take all the folks who get in car/car
crashes, and see how many die, and compare that number
to the folks who die in car/train crashes, well - the
train always wins. I'm suprised the ratio is more
like 90 percent, rather than 40!

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

I also don't understand the difference in the stats
quoted, between "fatal accidents" and "accident deaths."

A coach crashes of a bridge.... 1 fatal accident... 40 accident deaths.

In article ,
says...

I also don't understand the difference in the stats
quoted, between "fatal accidents" and "accident deaths."


I assume "fatal accidents" is the number of incidents
resulting in one or more deaths.

Ned Simmons

Jonathan Barnes wrote:

I also don't understand the difference in the stats
quoted, between "fatal accidents" and "accident deaths."

A coach crashes of a bridge.... 1 fatal accident... 40 accident deaths.

There were 40 fatalities in that one deadly accident?
--
SATOR AREPO TENET OPERA ROTAS
Have 5 nice days! John
******************************
--- ILN 000.000.001 ---

In article , Jonathan Barnes says...


I also don't understand the difference in the stats
quoted, between "fatal accidents" and "accident deaths."

A coach crashes of a bridge.... 1 fatal accident... 40 accident deaths.

How about a ten-car pile-up where one person dies - would
that then be 10 fatal accidents, and one accident death?

Just seems to me that the defintions (and the formatting!!)
of those statistics presented left a *lot* to the
imagination.

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

jim rozen wrote:

In article , Jonathan Barnes says...


I also don't understand the difference in the stats
quoted, between "fatal accidents" and "accident deaths."

A coach crashes of a bridge.... 1 fatal accident... 40 accident deaths.

How about a ten-car pile-up where one person dies - would
that then be 10 fatal accidents, and one accident death?

Or how about the bus involved in an accident:
No fatalities, however 40 people complaining
about whiplash... Weird is that according to
the bus driver he had only 28 passengers when
the accident happened.
--
SATOR AREPO TENET OPERA ROTAS
Have 5 nice days! John
******************************
--- ILN 000.000.001 ---

On Wed, 07 Jan 2004 17:32:52 GMT, Mark
wrote:



Bob Swinney wrote:

Bull**** re. the cost of firearms injuries! Imagine a society in which
there was total zero firearms.






I would have to mix salt peter, sulfur and charcoal.

Im always fascinated by folks who think the genie can be stuffed back in
the bottle. Or worse.."feel" the genie can be stuffed back in the
bottle.

Never happened, never will.

Gunner



"Aren't cats Libertarian? They just want to be left alone.
I think our dog is a Democrat, as he is always looking for a handout"
Unknown Usnet Poster

Heh, heh, I'm pretty sure my dog is a liberal - he has no balls.
Keyton

On Wed, 07 Jan 2004 23:39:25 GMT, Larry Jaques
wrote:


I also don't understand the difference in the stats
quoted, between "fatal accidents" and "accident deaths."

Ayup, whoever wrote that questionnaire/database didn't know
what they were doing. Dat's fer sher.

Take it up with the insurance industry....

http://www.ohioinsurancefactbook.org...apter_two5.htm

Gunner



"Aren't cats Libertarian? They just want to be left alone.
I think our dog is a Democrat, as he is always looking for a handout"
Unknown Usnet Poster

Heh, heh, I'm pretty sure my dog is a liberal - he has no balls.
Keyton

In article , John says...

Or how about the bus involved in an accident:
No fatalities, however 40 people complaining
about whiplash... Weird is that according to
the bus driver he had only 28 passengers when
the accident happened.

Ha ha. The minute the bus crashed, a dozen more
folks jumped on board!

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

Not to mention the lawyers.

Greg H.

"jim rozen" wrote in message
...


Ha ha. The minute the bus crashed, a dozen more
folks jumped on board!

On 7 Jan 2004 15:55:06 -0800, jim rozen
brought forth from the murky depths:

What are my chances of dying in a crash, with another car?
Sort of high, right? Because most of what I encounter when
I drive, is other cars.

0.008% sir. Pretty low.


What are my chances of dying in
a crash, with a train as the other vehicle? Overall pretty
low - because I don't encounter many trains on the road, as
a rule.

..02%, sir. Roughly 40 times higher, Jim. chortle
But the postulate was different, comparing mortality rate
between vehicles in auto wrecks.


So it's safe to say that, overall, dying by getting in a
car/train wreck is about a percent or less of teh chance
of dying in a car/car crash for me.

Man, that's a twist. Where'd the 99%/1% figure come from,
the "Book of Thin Air Stats"?

No, your chance of dying in a train/car wreck is 40 times
higher than dying in a car/car wreck, though you are more
likely to be in a car than a train on any given day.


But, if one says, take all the folks who get in car/car
crashes, and see how many die, and compare that number
to the folks who die in car/train crashes, well - the
train always wins. I'm suprised the ratio is more
like 90 percent, rather than 40!

Actually, the percentage is lower than first expected. I
guess they include those folks who drive directly into the
_side_ of trains and survive the little thump of being thrown
a city block away.

Hmm, don't "percent" and "times" mean different things to you?
Comparing apples to oranges to tomatoes comes easily to y'all,
don't she, Jim? rolls eyes, groans loudly, and grins

I do see what you mean but it wasn't what we were talking about.


---------------------------------------------------------------
Never put off 'til tomorrow | http://www.diversify.com
what you can avoid altogether. | Dynamic Website Applications
---------------------------------------------------------------

A city wide blackout at Wed, 07 Jan 2004 15:21:49 GMT did not prevent "Bob
Swinney" from posting to rec.crafts.metalworking the
following:

Bull**** re. the cost of firearms injuries! Imagine a society in which
there was total zero firearms. All the sickos, criminals and otherwise
plain killers would have to resort to a less efficient way to prey upon the
decent element of society (that's me and you). So you'd have even higher
costs than are now being generated by those that seek to kill us. The gun
is an efficient killing device. The bad guys are smart enough to know that.
I plan to always have one on hand to defend myself. I'm less likely to be
injured by a gun than I am with some sicko wielding a knife - esp. if I am
able to land the first chop, errr, shot.

"Modern technology" - labor saving devices since the invention of pointy
sticks.

Anyone who believes that getting rid of guns will make for a better world,
is advocating the return to the GLory Years of Yore, when Might made Right and
to the Victor went the spoils.


--
pyotr filipivich.
as an explaination for the decline in the US's tech edge, James
Niccol wrote "It used to be that the USA was pretty good at
producing stuff teenaged boys could lose a finger or two playing with."

"jim rozen" wrote in message
...
In article , Jonathan Barnes
says...


I also don't understand the difference in the stats
quoted, between "fatal accidents" and "accident deaths."

A coach crashes of a bridge.... 1 fatal accident... 40 accident
deaths.

How about a ten-car pile-up where one person dies - would
that then be 10 fatal accidents, and one accident death?

Just seems to me that the defintions (and the formatting!!)
of those statistics presented left a *lot* to the
imagination.

Jim


Now I'm curious, in construction they have so many deaths per work
performed/money spent etc. Is there a baseline for deaths per complex
product? 100 million guns = 10,000 deaths. 200 million cars = 20,000
deaths. 10 thousand punch presses = 10 deaths. Build a better mouse
trap and it's going to kill at least 2% of the buyers.

C

On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 10:06:11 GMT, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

A city wide blackout at Wed, 07 Jan 2004 15:21:49 GMT did not prevent "Bob
Swinney" from posting to rec.crafts.metalworking the
following:

Bull**** re. the cost of firearms injuries! Imagine a society in which
there was total zero firearms. All the sickos, criminals and otherwise
plain killers would have to resort to a less efficient way to prey upon the
decent element of society (that's me and you). So you'd have even higher
costs than are now being generated by those that seek to kill us. The gun
is an efficient killing device. The bad guys are smart enough to know that.
I plan to always have one on hand to defend myself. I'm less likely to be
injured by a gun than I am with some sicko wielding a knife - esp. if I am
able to land the first chop, errr, shot.

"Modern technology" - labor saving devices since the invention of pointy
sticks.

Anyone who believes that getting rid of guns will make for a better world,
is advocating the return to the GLory Years of Yore, when Might made Right and
to the Victor went the spoils.



No comment one way or the other. Just interesting:-
http://ije.oupjournals.org/cgi/reprint/27/2/214.pdf

Mark Rand
RTFM

On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 22:01:31 +0000, Mark Rand wrote:
No comment one way or the other. Just interesting:-
http://ije.oupjournals.org/cgi/reprint/27/2/214.pdf

The most interesting thing is the implied concept that a "firearm death"
is somehow more awful than any other form of homicide or suicide.
What the numbers seem to show is that in places where firearms are
easily available, they are the tool of choice, but where they aren't easily
available, other methods are used. No big surprise there.

Gary

On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 20:27:38 GMT, "CROQ" wrote:
Now I'm curious, in construction they have so many deaths per work
performed/money spent etc. Is there a baseline for deaths per complex
product? 100 million guns = 10,000 deaths. 200 million cars = 20,000
deaths. 10 thousand punch presses = 10 deaths. Build a better mouse
trap and it's going to kill at least 2% of the buyers.

About 2% of Shuttle flights break up either during ascent or descent.

Gary

On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 04:58:04 -0500, Gary Coffman
brought forth from the murky depths:

On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 22:01:31 +0000, Mark Rand wrote:
No comment one way or the other. Just interesting:-
http://ije.oupjournals.org/cgi/reprint/27/2/214.pdf

The most interesting thing is the implied concept that a "firearm death"
is somehow more awful than any other form of homicide or suicide.

The term was probably coined "for the children!" Other than that,
the CDC data seems to be fairly decent.

Riddle me this: Why is an epidemiological society looking
into firearm deaths and/or suicide? The term is defined
as "That which deals with the incidence, distribution, and
control of disease in a population."

Firearms and suicide are diseases now?!?


What the numbers seem to show is that in places where firearms are
easily available, they are the tool of choice, but where they aren't easily
available, other methods are used. No big surprise there.

Supporting your statement, 98% of suicides in the UK used methods
other than firearms since they're less available there.
http://cebmh.warne.ox.ac.uk/cebmh/elmh/nelmh/suicide/statistics/methods.html

(And look at those suicide figures. Asia is VERY depressed while most
of "civilised" Europe is ahead of the USA in figures, Mr. Steyn.)


Why are suicides included with crimes, anyway? And why aren't new
forms of suicide included in reports? Methods such as smoking,
drinking, overeating, and "talking on cell phone while driving"?
Advanced societies, huh? ;
--
Vidi, Vici, Veni
---
http://diversify.com Comprehensive Website Development